229 replies to this topic

[DocBach]

I think a single reticle that doesn't display your weapons offset, just the center of your cone would be pretty cool, sort of like shooting a real gun at any range other than the range you zeroed it at - you have to learn your holds of where to aim to hit the target where you want to.

Edited by DocBach, 18 November 2011 - 02:55 PM.

[BduSlammer]

Yes very nice but there is one thing you are over looking , in this game even though those laser hit different arears it is considered the center torse that goes from chin to hips and that is how they look at it . If the hits were at chin or lower they still take it off the center torse , and that is how damage is done

[Gaius Cavadus]

BduSlammer, on 18 November 2011 - 02:55 PM, said:

Yes very nice but there is one thing you are over looking , in this game even though those laser hit different arears it is considered the center torse that goes from chin to hips and that is how they look at it . If the hits were at chin or lower they still take it off the center torse , and that is how damage is done

That's a separate issue that doesn't fit into the scope of this thread. That being said, I'm a huge advocate of expanding the damage locations well beyond the traditional TT ones. I'd like as localized and pinpoint damage tracking as possible.

Ideally, I'd like an almost heatmap-like damage tracking system. We'll see what Piranha comes up with but I'm really hoping they add a ton of new locations as the hitboxing for the traditional TT armor sections has unfairly screwed over or enhanced particular mechs in previous Mechwarrior titles.

Edited by Cavadus, 18 November 2011 - 02:59 PM.

[CeeKay Boques]

[

BduSlammer, on 18 November 2011 - 02:55 PM, said:

Yes very nice but there is one thing you are over looking , in this game even though those laser hit different arears it is considered the center torse that goes from chin to hips and that is how they look at it . If the hits were at chin or lower they still take it off the center torse , and that is how damage is done

In Battletech, you mean, where 12 hitboxes rule everything, as opposed to a Modern day MechWarrior game where there could be hundred of hitboxes per limb/Torso side.

[DFDelta]

Ever since the first Red Faction came out in 2001 and showed us destructible terrain I've been thinking "why is no one using a system like that for armor calculation?". So yes, I'd love having a mech with hundreds of small hitzones.

[VYCanis]

Patriot, on 18 November 2011 - 02:40 PM, said:

Missiles have their own target tracking systems built-in, so this is negligible for such a CoF.
Rockets however, i'm not too sure about.(no, not regular SRMs, they're Missiles because they can track and adjust in mid-flight)

you make a good point.

if the system does not allow torso weapons to converge to some extent, it would favor the torso mounting of missile systems over any direct fire weapons. Effectively punishing anyone that doesn't rearrange their mech's loadouts to shove all the missile launchers in the L/R torsos and guns in the arms for max effectiveness. which opens up a new avenue for optimizers to come in

Edited by VYCanis, 18 November 2011 - 03:32 PM.

[Bear Shaman]

Missiles shouldn't be capable of turning on a dime (big flaw in MW4), so you might be able to compensate for optimization tactics by forcing a pilot with torso missiles to turn their torso at least somewhat toward their target in order to hit it. Locking on does not guarantee a successful hit. Arm-mounted missiles, on the other hand, would hit more reliably, since their flight would always begin in the direction of a good lock.

[Yeach]

Bravo Cavadus!

[feor]

just for referance, in the background regular LRMs & SRMs don't really track on their target, their maneuvering is really just to keep them traveling in a straight line. The technology to make targeting systems that would home in on a target had mostly been lost during the Succession Wars.

Artemis Fire Control Systems, with specially outfitted Artemis missiles, were able to track a target to a limited extent, as you describe, represented on the Table Top as more missiles actually hitting the target. (probably)

Streak was the ultimate culmination of this development line (and available on SRM2s even in 3049) allowing pinpoint target tracking, and even preventing the missiles from firing if they wouldn't be able to strike the target.

Later the Periphery and the Combine, looking for cheaper solutions deployed completely unguided munitions again in the form of MRMs for the combine and Rocket Launchers in the Periphery. MRMs being closer to unguided LRMs in function (the removal of the rudimentary stabilizing system letting them carry a bigger payload, but effective range suffers since they spread out from the point of launch) Rocket Launchers being essentially disposable saturation weapons, with the advantage that they weigh almost nothing and generate no (or at least almost no) heat.

[Rhinehart]

I have to say that is a well thought out and executed concept and I like it. And it figures in a lot of possible choices and consequences. Do you arm mount major weapons for better target tracking and convergence or do you torso mount them for better protection against incoming damage? Also prompts a question, should high heat producing weapons such as energy based lasers and PPCs generate more heat in an enclosed torso mount than on an arm mount which generally has more air exposure? Just a thought.

[EDMW CSN]

I have to agree with this case... But it needs a fix to the hit boxes and armor locations to work properly

[Lasercat]

VYCanis, on 18 November 2011 - 03:30 PM, said:

if the system does not allow torso weapons to converge to some extent, it would favor the torso mounting of missile systems over any direct fire weapons. Effectively punishing anyone that doesn't rearrange their mech's loadouts to shove all the missile launchers in the L/R torsos and guns in the arms for max effectiveness. which opens up a new avenue for optimizers to come in

Sort of. The difference between arm mounted and torso mounted missiles should be that one can shoot in many directions and the other is fixed. In MW3 you could direct missiles to fire over buildings and terrain by just aiming upwards or to the side: here's an example. About halfway through the person playing gets their missiles to arc up onto on annihilator. Ideally that kind of flexibility is the advantage arm mounted missiles should have.

[Halfinax]

Cavadus, on 18 November 2011 - 12:50 PM, said:

►Parallel Barrels
This is an issue that is invariably overlooked. Parallel barrels are the barrels of multiple direct fire weapons which cannot converge with one another because they are either mounted in the torso, in which weapons cannot pivot or adjust their aim outside of orienting the entire torso, or are mounted next to one another in the same arm.

Don't take this the wrong way, but your argument falls short a this first line. In canon The weapons are capable of converging at various ranges. They do not have a static convergence range which means the torso mounted weapons have a semi turreted capability. If they were hard set then they could rarely hit a target outside of their vertical and horizontal convergence range.

I've suggested a few times a player adjustable convergence range to answer this very problem, but in canon it is explained as the computer adjusts such things. In either case the arm mounted weapons should converge more quickly, and I agree with the general sentiment that pinpoint accuracy is bogus when dealing with 'Mechs, but your argument for it is fairly poor.

If the convergence range on torso mounted weaponry was static then a series of weapons in parallel converged at 150 meters would basically be incapable of hitting a target at half that range, or 150% of that range, and then CoF goes out the window too. I think CoF works on it's own as an explanation of the targeting system needing time to converge at the indicated target, and as a representation of movement allowing for some variance in weapon trajectory, but ultimately I'd rather see player indicated convergence with computer assistance to bring the convergence within 2-5 meters of the indicated target.

[Bear Shaman]

Halfinax, on 18 November 2011 - 07:54 PM, said:

Don't take this the wrong way, but your argument falls short a this first line. In canon The weapons are capable of converging at various ranges. They do not have a static convergence range which means the torso mounted weapons have a semi turreted capability. If they were hard set then they could rarely hit a target outside of their vertical and horizontal convergence range.

I've suggested a few times a player adjustable convergence range to answer this very problem, but in canon it is explained as the computer adjusts such things. In either case the arm mounted weapons should converge more quickly, and I agree with the general sentiment that pinpoint accuracy is bogus when dealing with 'Mechs, but your argument for it is fairly poor.

If the convergence range on torso mounted weaponry was static then a series of weapons in parallel converged at 150 meters would basically be incapable of hitting a target at half that range, or 150% of that range, and then CoF goes out the window too. I think CoF works on it's own as an explanation of the targeting system needing time to converge at the indicated target, and as a representation of movement allowing for some variance in weapon trajectory, but ultimately I'd rather see player indicated convergence with computer assistance to bring the convergence within 2-5 meters of the indicated target.

Already addressed on the first page, a few posts in. For gameplay purposes, the individual actuators in mounted weapons just seem silly. I'm all for following the fluff/canon as much as possible, but if removing the ability of weapons to magically target anything with perfect convergence solves all of our balance concerns, loyalty to the source material suddenly seems much less important.

[Threat Doc]

Hitboxes = CBT Armor Points?

[Halfinax]

Bear Shaman, on 18 November 2011 - 08:04 PM, said:

Already addressed on the first page, a few posts in. For gameplay purposes, the individual actuators in mounted weapons just seem silly. I'm all for following the fluff/canon as much as possible, but if removing the ability of weapons to magically target anything with perfect convergence solves all of our balance concerns, loyalty to the source material suddenly seems much less important.

I'm not advocating perfect convergence I'm just pointing out the flaw in the OP's argument. In the "fluff" a torso mounted weapon can aim anywhere within 180 degrees of torso twist and anywhere within the weapons range. I'm not advocating this level of adherence to the rules. I'm simply pointing out that the weapons, in order to work within their specified range, must be capable of both vertical and horizontal convergence adjustment.

What I've suggested a few times is a compromise between CoF and Pin Point accuracy. I feel that a player adjustable convergence range with computer assistance is the best solution, but honestly barring that a CoF is the most logical and most player friendly adjustment.Just don't make the convergence rate absurd make it +/- 2 degrees of what is under the reticule at low/stop speed, and no more than +/- 10 degrees at full speed. This allows for both tactical maneuvering and player skill.

I think the penultimate level of player skill versus randomization is my suggestion of a player adjusted convergence range of 10 meters with the computer compensating within +/- 5 meters of that, but it would also be detrimental to being new player friendly even if you included weapon group set convergences, and player set hotkeys of convergence ranges.

[Riptor]

Quote

but ultimately I'd rather see player indicated convergence with computer assistance to bring the convergence within 2-5 meters of the indicated target.

While sounding nice this is way to much micromanaging for the usual F2P crowd and would turn this game into an even bigger niche game then it allready is. You cant make an F2P game to complicated in gameplay.

Thats also why we will never see an X3:terran conflict MMO with the same rules as the single player game for example.. to complicated for the masses and thus not profitable enough.

[Halfinax]

Riptor, on 18 November 2011 - 08:15 PM, said:

While sounding nice this is way to much micromanaging for the usual F2P crowd and would turn this game into an even bigger niche game then it allready is. You cant make an F2P game to complicated in gameplay.

Thats also why we will never see an X3:terran conflict MMO with the same rules as the single player game for example.. to complicated for the masses and thus not profitable enough.

I concur, and even say as much. I also say that I see the only real and player friendly solution to be a cone of fire that is movement dependent.

[Rhinehart]

As far as the argument for torso mounted weapon aiming or convergence, a lot of this will be solved by the look of the mechs involved. Some torso mounted weapons clearly have gimbels or mounts that should have some ability to swivel. I.E. Unseen Marauder Autocannon mount.

Another thought is that Laser weapons might have some kind of lense system that can alter the direction of the beam in a limited manner.

Just a thought.

[Riptor]

Quote

I concur, and even say as much. I also say that I see the only real and player friendly solution to be a cone of fire that is movement dependent.

Okay.. i bite...

Using mouse and keyboard.. how do i set up weapon convergence midmatch without breaking my fingers.. and how do i do it if im using a joystick wich there are countless variations thereof? Oo